Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramadhar Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1267 of 2024
(RAMADHAR SAKET AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-02-2024
Shri Vivek Shukla - Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - PL for the State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Heard on I.A. No.1841/2024, which is first application filed on behalf
of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
At the outset, the counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of this
application so far as it relates to appellant No. 1 Ramadhar Saket, appellant No.
4 Rajesh Saket and appellant No. 10 Hari Prasad Saket.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1841/2024, in respect of appellant No. 1
Ramadhar Saket, appellant No. 4 Rajesh Saket and appellant No. 10
Hari Prasad Saket is dismissed as withdrawn.
Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 have been convicted by the trial Court
under Sections 148, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323 (on two counts) of IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/- each, R.I. for
7 years with fine of Rs.2000/- each, R.i. for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/- each,
R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- each and r.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.
250/- each (on two counts) respectively with default stipulations.
The counsel for appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 submits that the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on
record and committed error while convicting appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 for
aforesaid offences. It is further submitted that as per the case of the
prosecution, there was open fight between two rival parties and both the sides
sustained injuries. It is submitted that except from appellant No. 1 Ramadhar
Saket, appellant No. 4 Rajesh Saket and appellant No. 10 Hari Prasad Saket, no
seizure has been made from appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9. It is further
submitted that appellant No. 2, appellant No.5 and appellant No. 8 are ladies
aged about 40, 48 and 50 years respectively. Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 are
in custody disposal of this appeal would take considerable time, therefore, the
custodial sentence of appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 be suspended and they be
released on bail.
The counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted
that taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the injured,
which has been discussed by the trial Court in Paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present application is liable
to be dismissed.
Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the
record. Apparently, there is no seizure from appellant No. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 nor
even a lathi has been seized from any of them. Looking to the nature of injuries,
the fact that no seizure has been made from appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 and
period of their jail sentence, this Court deems it to be a fit case to suspend the
custodial sentence of the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 and to release them on
bail. Therefore, I.A. No.1841/2024 is allowed so far as it relates to
appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of appellant Nos. 2, 3 and
5 to 9 namely Shanti Devi Saket, Ramlallu Saket, Leelamati Saket,
Ramesh Kumar Saket, Jamuna Prasad @ Chhote Saket, Saraswati
Saket, Motilal Saket shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail
for securing their presence before the trial Court concerned on 1.7.2024 and on
such other dates as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during pendency
of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
